Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 19, Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 20, Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 21
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 19
When the court attaches the property of a borrower to expropriate it, they should expropriate only land of intermediate quality for a lender.
According to Scriptural Law, a creditor should receive only the property of inferior quality, as implied by Deuteronomy 24:11: "You shall stand outside and the person who owes you the money shall bring the security out to you." What is the tendency of a person to bring out? The least valuable of his utensils. Our Sages, however, ordained that a creditor could expropriate property of intermediate quality, so that people would not refuse to give loans.
When does the above apply? When the lender comes to collect from the borrower himself. If, however, the borrower dies, and the lender comes to collect from his heirs - whether they are below or above the age of majority - he may collect only property of inferior value.
אכְּשֶׁיּוֹרְדִין בֵּית דִּין לְנִכְסֵי הַלּוֶֹה לִגְבּוֹת מֵהֶן לֹא יִגְבּוּ לְבַעַל חוֹב אֶלָּא מִן הַבֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁבְּקַרְקְעוֹתָיו. וְדִין תּוֹרָה שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה בַּעַל חוֹב מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד יא) "בַּחוּץ תַּעֲמֹד וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה נשֶׁה בוֹ יוֹצִיא" וְגוֹ' מַה דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם לְהוֹצִיא פָּחוּת שֶׁבְּכֵלָיו. אֲבָל תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים בְּבֵינוֹנִיּת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּנְעל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוֹוִין. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבָא לִפָּרַע מִן הַלּוֶֹה עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל הַבָּא לִפָּרַע מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין בֵּין קְטַנִּים בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים לֹא יִפָּרַע אֶלָּא מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית:
We do not collect payment from property that has been sold, when the debtor owns property that is still in his possession. [This applies] even if the property in his possession is of inferior quality, and the property that has been sold is of intermediate or superior quality, and whether the property was sold or given away as presents.
If the property that has not been sold is flooded, the creditor may collect the property that has been sold. The rationale is that since it has been devastated, it is as if it no longer exists.
באֵין נִפְרָעִים מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין זִבּוּרִית וְהַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִים בֵּינוֹנִית אוֹ עִידִית בֵּין שֶׁמְּכָרָם בֵּין שֶׁנְּתָנָם. נִשְׁתַּדְּפוּ בְּנֵי חוֹרִין הֲרֵי זֶה טוֹרֵף מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲתוּ כְּאִלּוּ אֵינָם:
The creditor is given the upper hand in the following situation. Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon, and Shimon sold one of his fields to Levi. If one of Reuven's creditors comes to expropriate property in payment for his debt, he may expropriate property from either Shimon or Levi.
When does the above apply? When Levi purchased property of intermediate value. If, however, he purchased property that was of superior or inferior value, the creditor cannot expropriate property from Levi. For Levi will tell him: "I purposely took the trouble of purchasing a field that you have no right to expropriate, so that you would not have a claim against me." Similarly, if Levi purchased a field of intermediate worth and left Shimon a field of intermediate worth similar to the one of intermediate worth that he expropriated, the creditor cannot expropriate the field from Levi, for he will tell the creditor: "I left you property to expropriate as payment for your debt."
גרְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר כָּל שְׂדוֹתָיו לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְחָזַר שִׁמְעוֹן וּמָכַר שָׂדֶה אַחַת מֵהֶן לְלֵוִי וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן לִטְרֹף רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁלָּקַח לֵוִי בֵּינוֹנִית. אֲבָל אִם לָקַח עִידִית אוֹ זִבּוּרִית אֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף מִלֵּוִי שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ מִפְּנֵי זֶה טָרַחְתִּי וְלָקַחְתִּי שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵין דִּינְךָ לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ. וְכֵן אִם לָקַח לֵוִי בֵּינוֹנִית וְהִנִּיחַ אֵצֶל שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּינוֹנִית כְּמוֹ הַבֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁלָּקַח אֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף מִלֵּוִי שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ:
We have already explained that payment for damages should be expropriated from property of superior value, a lender should expropriate property of intermediate value, and the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah should be expropriated from property of inferior value.
When a person owns only property of superior value and property of inferior value, damages should be expropriated from the property of superior value, and a lender and a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah should expropriate the property of inferior value.
If he owns only property of superior value and property of intermediate value, damages should be expropriated from the property of superior value, and a lender and a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah should expropriate the property of intermediate value.
If he owns only property of inferior value and property of intermediate value, damages and payment for a loan should be expropriated from the property of intermediate value, and a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah should expropriate the property of inferior value.
דכְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַנִּזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בְּעִידִית וּבַעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּזִבּוּרִית. הָיוּ לוֹ עִידִית וְזִבּוּרִית נִזָּקִין בְּעִידִית בַּעַל חוֹב [וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה] בְּזִבּוּרִית. הָיוּ לוֹ עִידִית וּבֵינוֹנִית נִזָּקִין בְּעִידִית וּבַעַל חוֹב וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּבֵינוֹנִית. הָיוּ לוֹ זִבּוּרִית וּבֵינוֹנִית בִּלְבַד נִזָּקִין וּבַעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּזִבּוּרִית:
When a person owns three fields and he sells them to three people at the same time, they all take the place of the previous owner. Thus, payment for damages should be expropriated from property of superior value, a lender should expropriate property of intermediate value and the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah should be expropriated from property of inferior value.
If he sold them one after the other, they should all expropriate their due from the last purchaser. If the worth of that property was not sufficient, they should expropriate from the property purchased before it. If the worth of that property was also not sufficient, they should expropriate from the property purchased first.
This applies even if the last purchaser acquired the property of inferior quality. For the purchaser who preceded him can tell the person who seeks to expropriate property: "I left you property from which you could collect your debt."
המְכָרָן לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּבַת אַחַת הֲרֵי כֻּלָּן נִכְנְסוּ תַּחַת הַבְּעָלִים וְהַנִּזָּקִין טוֹרְפִין מִן הָעִידִית וּבַעַל חוֹב טוֹרֵף מִן הַבֵּינוֹנִית וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה טוֹרֶפֶת מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית. מְכָרָן לָזֶה אַחַר זֶה כֻּלָּן טוֹרְפִין מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן. לֹא הִסְפִּיק טוֹרְפִין מִשֶּׁלְּפָנָיו. לֹא הִסְפִּיק טוֹרְפִין מִשֶּׁלִּפְנֵי פָנָיו. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הָאַחֲרוֹן הוּא שֶׁלָּקַח הַזִּבּוּרִית שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ הַקּוֹדֵם אוֹמֵר לַטּוֹרֵף הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ:
When a debtor sells all of his properties to one person, one after the other, that person takes the place of the original owner.
When does the above apply? When he purchased the property of superior quality last. When, however, he purchased the property of inferior quality last, all the creditors must collect their due from that property. For when a person comes to expropriate property, the purchaser will tell him: "I left you property from which you can collect your debt."
Why does the creditor not tell this to a person who seeks to expropriate the property when he purchased the property of superior value first, and thus a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and a lender would also expropriate their due from the property of superior value? Because this possibility is an ordinance instituted for the sake of the purchaser. And he will tell them: "I cannot accept this ordinance." Instead, each type of creditor will collect from the property fit for him.
ומְכָרָן לְאֶחָד זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ הֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ נִכְנָס תַּחַת הַבְּעָלִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלָּקַח עִידִית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה אֲבָל לָקַח זִבּוּרִית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה כֻּלָּן גּוֹבִין מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לַטּוֹרֵף כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁלָּקַח תְּחִלָּה הֲרֵי הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ. וְלָמָּה אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר לוֹ הַטּוֹרֵף כָּךְ אִם לָקַח עִידִית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וְתִגְבֶּה הָאִשָּׁה וּבַעַל חוֹב מִן הָעִידִית שֶׁלָּקַח בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה. שֶׁזּוֹ תַּקָּנָה הִיא לַלּוֹקֵחַ וַהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹקֵחַ לָהֶן אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּתַקָּנָה זוֹ אֶלָּא כָּל אֶחָד מִכֶּם יִגְבֶּה מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ:
Similarly, the following laws apply when the debtor sold all his properties to one person, one after the other, selling him the property of superior value last, and that purchaser sold the property of inferior and intermediate value to a third party and retained the property of superior value for himself. All the debtors collect their due from the property of superior value, for the purchaser does not have any property from the original debtor to divert them to.
When the purchaser sold the property of superior value and retained the properties of inferior and intermediate value, payment for damages should be expropriated from property of superior value in the possession of the second purchaser. The debt owed a lender and the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah should be expropriated from the property of intermediate and inferior value that the first purchaser retained.
זמְכָרָן לְאֶחָד זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ וּמָכַר לוֹ עִידִית בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וְחָזַר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וּמָכַר זִבּוּרִית וּבֵינוֹנִית וְשִׁיֵּר עִידִית לְפָנָיו כֻּלָּן גּוֹבִין מִן הָעִידִית שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין לוֹ בְּמָה יִדְחֶה אוֹתָם. מָכַר עִידִית וְהִנִּיחַ בֵּינוֹנִית וְזִבּוּרִית הַנִּזָּקִין טוֹרְפִין מִן הָעִידִית שֶׁבְּיַד לוֹקֵחַ הַשֵּׁנִי וּבַעַל חוֹב וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה גּוֹבִין מִבֵּינוֹנִית וְזִבּוּרִית שֶׁשִּׁיֵּר לְפָנָיו:
As reflected in the following situation, when a person limits his power to expropriate property, his waiver may extend beyond his original intent: One person borrowed money from a colleague. Afterwards, the borrower sold his property to two people each person purchasing a portion for himself, one after the other. The creditor wrote to the second purchaser, pledging that he would not expropriate the property as payment for the debt and affirmed his commitment with a kinyan. Our Sages ruled that he is also not able to expropriate the property sold to the first purchaser. For that purchaser will say to the creditor: "I left you the opportunity of collecting the money owed you from the debtor by expropriating the property that the second purchaser bought after I did. You caused yourself a loss by removing your lien on it."
Similar laws apply with regard to a woman who seeks to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. If she writes such a waiver to the second purchaser, she loses the right to the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and cannot expropriate property. If, however, such persons write such a waiver to the first purchaser, they may expropriate the property from the second purchaser.
The following situation can occur when a borrower sells a field to a purchaser and then the purchaser sells it to a second purchaser. The lender writes to the first purchaser, pledging that he would not expropriate the property as payment for the debt and affirms his commitment with a kinyan. The creditor may expropriate the property from the second purchaser. The first purchaser may expropriate the property from the creditor, because he pledged that he would not expropriate the property, and he did. The second purchaser can then expropriate the property from the first purchaser, because he sold it to him. The creditor may then expropriate the property again from the second purchaser, and the cycle continues until they arrange a compromise.
Similar laws apply with regard to a woman who seeks to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and makes a pledge to the person who purchased her husband's property.
חמִי שֶׁלָּוָה מֵאֶחָד וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָכַר הַלּוֶֹה נְכָסָיו לִשְׁנַיִם וְכָתַב בַּעַל חוֹב לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמְּךָ וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְרֹף מִלּוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ הִנַּחְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם לִגְבּוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ אֵצֶל בַּעַל חוֹבְךָ מִן הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁקָּנָה לוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי אַחֲרַי וְאַתָּה הִפְסַדְתָּ עַל עַצְמְךָ שֶׁהֲרֵי סִלַּקְתָּ עַצְמְךָ מֵהֶן. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ אִם כָּתְבָה לַשֵּׁנִי. אִבְּדָה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִטְרֹף. אֲבָל אִם כָּתְבוּ לָרִאשׁוֹן טוֹרְפִין מִן הַשֵּׁנִי. מָכַר הַלּוֶֹה שָׂדֶה לַלּוֹקֵחַ וּמְכָרָהּ לוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן לְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי וְכָתַב הַמַּלְוֶה לְלוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמְּךָ וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב טוֹרֵף מִלּוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי אוֹתָהּ הַשָּׂדֶה וְלוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן טוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ מִבַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּתַב לוֹ וְלוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי טוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ מִלּוֹקֵחַ רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא מְכָרָהּ לוֹ וּבַעַל חוֹב חוֹזֵר וְטוֹרֵף מִשֵּׁנִי וְחוֹזְרִין חֲלִילָה עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשׂוּ פְּשָׁרָה בֵּינֵיהֶן. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ:
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 20
When a person owes many debts, the person whose debt was made first has the right to expropriate property first - from the borrower himself and from his creditors. If a later creditor expropriated property before the first creditor, the first creditor may expropriate it from him. For the person whose debt was established first acquires the property.
To what does the above apply? To landed property that the borrower possessed at the time that he took the loan. When, however, he purchased landed property after borrowing from many creditors, no one is granted precedence over the others, even if the borrower wrote to each one in the promissory note: "The property that I will purchase in the future is on lien to you." Instead, all are equal, and whoever comes first and expropriates the property acquires it, even if he was the last to make the loan.
אמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חוֹבוֹת הַרְבֵּה כָּל שֶׁקָּדַם חוֹבוֹ גּוֹבֶה תְּחִלָּה בֵּין מִן הַלּוֶֹה עַצְמוֹ בֵּין מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. וְאִם קָדַם הָאַחֲרוֹן וְגָבָה מוֹצִיאִים מִיָּדוֹ שֶׁכָּל שֶׁקָּדַם חוֹבוֹ זָכָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁלָּוָה אֲבָל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת שֶׁקָּנָה אַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת הַרְבֵּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶן מַה שֶּׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת מְשֻׁעְבָּד לְךָ אֵין בָּהֶן דִּין קְדִימָה אֶלָּא כֻּלָּן שָׁוִין וְכָל שֶׁקָּדַם וְגָבָה זָכָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אַחֲרוֹן:
When a borrower writes in the promissory note: "What I will acquire in the future is on lien to you," afterwards purchases a field and then borrows from another person, the field is on lien to the first lender. He has the right to expropriate it first. Similar principles apply even if there are 100 creditors.
There is no concept of precedence with regard to the expropriation of movable property. Instead, whoever comes first and expropriates it acquires it, even if he was the last to make the loan.
If another person came and seized possession of movable property belonging to this debtor in order to acquire the property on behalf of one of the creditors, that person does not acquire the property. The rationale is that a person who seizes property on behalf of a creditor in a situation where a loss is caused to another person does not acquire it. If, however, seizing it would not cause a loss to other people, he does acquire it for him. Similarly, if the borrower tells him: "Acquire this article on behalf of so-and-so," he acquires it for him. None of the other creditors can expropriate this movable property, because another person has already acquired it.
בלָוָה וְכָתַב לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת מְשֻׁעְבָּד לְךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קָנָה שָׂדֶה וְחָזַר וְלָוָה מֵאַחֵר הֲרֵי הַשָּׂדֶה מְשֻׁעְבָּד לָרִאשׁוֹן וְהוּא קוֹדֵם לִגְבּוֹת. וְכֵן אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ מֵאָה אֵין דִּין קְדִימָה בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין אֶלָּא כָּל שֶׁקָּדַם וְגָבָה מֵהֶן זָכָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אַחֲרוֹן. קִדֵּם אֶחָד מִשְּׁאָר אָדָם וְתָפַס מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁל זֶה כְּדֵי לִזְכּוֹת לְאֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת לֹא זָכָה שֶׁכָּל הַתּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו חוֹב לַאֲחֵרִים לֹא קָנָה. אֲבָל אֵין עָלָיו חוֹב לַאֲחֵרִים קָנָה לוֹ. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַלּוֶֹה זְכֵה בְּחֵפֶץ זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי זָכָה לוֹ וְאֵין אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת יְכוֹלִין לִגְבּוֹת מֵאֵלּוּ הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁכְּבָר זָכָה בָּהֶן אַחֵר:
When promissory notes are all dated on the same date - or at the same hour, in a place where the hours are mentioned - whichever creditor comes first and expropriates property, whether landed property or movable property, acquires it.
גשְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁזְּמַן כֻּלָּן יוֹם אֶחָד אוֹ שָׁעָה אַחַת בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין שָׁעוֹת כָּל שֶׁקָּדַם מֵהֶן וְגָבָה בֵּין קַרְקַע בֵּין מִטַּלְטְלִין זָכָה:
The ensuing laws apply when creditors whose promissory notes are dated on the same date all come to expropriate property together, or when creditors whose promissory notes were dated before one another come to expropriate movable property, for there is no concept of precedence with regard to movable property, or creditors come to expropriate property that the borrower purchased after taking the loan dated last, and the property the borrower possesses is not sufficient to enable each one to collect the debt that is owed to them.
How is the property divided? If when the property is divided in equal portions according to the number of creditors, the person owed the least will receive the amount owed him or less, the property is divided into that number of equal portions.
If dividing the property into equal portions would give the person owed the least more than he is owed, this is what should be done: We divide the sum equally among the creditors so that the person owed the least will receive the money that he is owed. He then withdraws. The remaining creditors then divide the balance of the debtor's resources in the following manner.
What is implied? A person owed three debts: one of a maneh, one for 200 and one for 300. If all the resources of the debtor total 300 zuz, they are divided 100 for each. Similarly, if his resources are less than 300, they should be divided equally among the three.
If his resources total more than 300 zuz, the 300 should be divided equally and then the person owed 100 should withdraw. The remaining money should be divided equally in this same manner.
What is implied? If the debtor's resources total 500 or less, the 300 should be divided equally, and then the person owed 100 should withdraw. The balance of 200 or less should then be divided equally among the remaining creditors, and then the second one withdraws.
If the debtor's resources total 600, the 300 should be divided equally, and then the person owed 100 should withdraw. They then divide 200 between the two equally, and then the second one withdraws. The 100 that remain should then be given to the person owed 300; he thus receives only 300. The debtor's resources should be divided according to this pattern even if there are 100 creditors, if they come to divide the resources at the same time. There are, however, Geonim who rule that the resources should be divided in proportion to the amount owed each creditor.
דבָּאוּ כֻּלָּן בְּיַחַד לִגְבּוֹת. וְכֵן בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם לִזְמַן חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בָּהֶן דִּין קְדִימָה. אוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ לִגְבּוֹת מִקַּרְקַע שֶׁקָּנָה הַלּוֶֹה לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאֵין בַּנְּכָסִים כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶת חוֹבוֹ. מְחַלְּקִין בֵּינֵיהֶן. כֵּיצַד חוֹלְקִין. אִם כְּשֶׁיִּתְחַלֵּק הַמָּמוֹן הַנִּמְצָא עַל מִנְיָנָם יַגִּיעַ לַפָּחוּת שֶׁבָּהֶן כְּשִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ אוֹ פָּחוֹת חוֹלְקִים לְפִי מִנְיָנָם בְּשָׁוֶה. וְאִם יַגִּיעַ לַפָּחוּת שֶׁבָּהֶם יוֹתֵר עַל חוֹבוֹ חוֹלְקִים מִכָּל הַמָּמוֹן בֵּינֵיהֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לַפָּחוּת שֶׁבָּהֶם כְּשִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ וְחוֹזְרִין הַנִּשְׁאָרִים מִבַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת וְחוֹלְקִין הַיֶּתֶר בֵּינֵיהֶן כַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֹּאת. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חוֹבוֹת שֶׁל זֶה מָנֶה וְשֶׁל זֶה מָאתַיִם וְשֶׁל זֶה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אִם הָיָה כָּל הַנִּמְצָא שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת נוֹטְלִין מֵאָה מֵאָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא שָׁם פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. נִמְצָא שָׁם יֶתֶר עַל שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת חוֹלְקִין שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק בַּעַל הַמֵּאָה וּשְׁאָר הַמָּמוֹן חוֹלְקִין אוֹתוֹ הַשְּׁנַיִם עַל אוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ. כֵּיצַד. נִמְצְאוּ שָׁם חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת אוֹ פָּחוֹת חוֹלְקִין שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק הָאֶחָד וְחוֹזְרִין וְחוֹלְקִין הַמָּאתַיִם אוֹ הַפָּחוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק הַשֵּׁנִי. נִמְצָא שָׁם שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת חוֹלְקִין שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק בַּעַל הַמָּנֶה וְחוֹזְרִין וְחוֹלְקִין הַמָּאתַיִם בֵּין הַשְּׁנַיִם בְּשָׁוֶה וְיִסְתַּלֵּק בַּעַל הַמָּאתַיִם. וְנוֹתְנִין הַמֵּאָה הַנִּשְׁאָרִים לְבַעַל הַשְּׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְנִמְצָא בְּיָדוֹ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת בִּלְבַד. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ חוֹלְקִין אֲפִלּוּ הֵן מֵאָה כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לִגְבּוֹת כְּאַחַת. וְיֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהוֹרוּ שֶׁחוֹלְקִין לְפִי מָמוֹנָם:
The fact that a promissory note is not dated correctly creates difficulties for its bearer. For example, Reuven and Shimon each possess a promissory note, stating that Levi owes them money. The promissory note possessed by Reuven is dated Nissan 5, and that possessed by Shimon is dated Nissan, without specifying a day. Levi possesses only one field that is not equal in value to the debts owed them both. Reuven is allowed to take possession of the field, for perhaps the promissory note owed Shimon was signed at the end of Nissan.
Similarly, Shimon cannot expropriate a field that was sold by Levi from lyyar or afterwards. For the purchaser will tell him: "Perhaps the date of your promissory note is the first of Nissan. There is a field that was not sold at that time in the possession of Reuven. Expropriate it and then let Reuven, whose promissory note is dated after yours, come and expropriate the field from me." Therefore, if Reuven and Shimon write each other a document granting power of attorney, they may expropriate a field that was sold after lyyar using both vantage points.
Similar laws apply if Levi sold one field twice, composing separate deeds of sale for Reuven and for Shimon, with one dated on the first of Nissan and one Nissan, without specifying a day.
הרְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן לְכָל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל לֵוִי רְאוּבֵן שְׁטָרוֹ בַּחֲמִישִׁי בְּנִיסָן וְשִׁמְעוֹן שְׁטָרוֹ בְּנִיסָן סְתָם וַהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לְלֵוִי שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ כְּדֵי חוֹב שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹרִידִין לְתוֹכָהּ רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּא שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן בְּסוֹף נִיסָן הָיָה. וְכֵן אֵין שִׁמְעוֹן יָכוֹל לִטְרֹף מֵאִיָּר וְאֵילָךְ שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹמֵר לוֹ שֶׁמָּא בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן הוּא זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָרְךָ וַהֲרֵי שָׂדֶה בַּת חוֹרִין בְּיַד רְאוּבֵן שֶׁתִּגְבֶּה אוֹתָהּ וְיָבוֹא רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוּא אַחַר זְמַנְּךָ וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לִטְרֹף מִמֶּנּוּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם כָּתְבוּ הַרְשָׁאָה זֶה לָזֶה טוֹרְפִין מֵאִיָּר וְאֵילָךְ מִכָּל צַד. וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּרְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁמָּכַר לָהֶן לֵוִי שָׂדֶה אַחַת בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בַּחֲמִשָּׁה בְּנִיסָן וּשְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּנִיסָן סְתָם:
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 21
When a creditor expropriates a field, he may also expropriate the increase in value that the purchaser brings about within the field. This applies whether the field increases in value because of an investment, or it increases in value as a matter of course.
There is, however, a difference between the two instances. If it increases in value as a matter of course, the creditor may expropriate the entire increase in value. If it increased in value because of an investment, the creditor may expropriate only half the increase.
What is implied? Reuven was owed a debt of 200 zuz by Shimon. Shimon sold a field to Levi for a maneh. Levi made an investment in the field and caused its value to increase and it is now worth 200. When Reuven expropriates it from Levi, he expropriates it from him for 100 and also the 50 that constitutes half the increase of value. If it increased in value on its own accord - e.g., the price rose or trees grew - he can expropriate the entire amount.
Great sages issued a ruling stating that a purchaser should not have lesser legal power than a person who occupies a field belonging to a colleague without permission, in which instance the increase in the field's value is appraised, and the squatter is given the weaker position. Therefore, if the field increased 100 zuz in value and Levi spent 50, Levi should receive all of his expenses and half of the increase in value beyond the expenses. The other half of the increase in value, and the principal, should be expropriated by the creditor. These are words of logic, and it is appropriate to rule accordingly. The purchaser then returns and expropriates the principal from Shimon's property, including even property that he sold or gave away after the time he sold this field to Levi. The increase in value that the creditor expropriated from Levi, the purchaser - whether half the increase in value or the entire increase - Levi may then expropriate only from property in the possession of Shimon. For it is an enactment instituted for the sake of society not to expropriate a property's increase in value, nor produce eaten by a thief, nor the sustenance given a widow and the deceased's daughters from property that has been sold. The rationale is that these are matters that have no limit. And it is one of the leniencies associated with a ketubah that a woman is not granted the opportunity of expropriating the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from a property's increase in value.
Why is a creditor able to expropriate only half the increase of value that comes after the investment was made? Because the increase in value comes after Shimon, the original owner borrowed money from Reuven and sold the property to Levi. Thus, Reuven and Levi can be considered to be two creditors of Shimon's and the increase in the value of the field as an increase in the value of his property that came after he borrowed from both of them. In such an instance, they divide the increase equally, as we have explained. Accordingly, the following rules apply in the ensuing circumstance. Reuven borrowed a maneh from Shimon, and in the promissory note wrote that he is extending the lien to: "the property that I will acquire in the future." He then borrowed 200 zuz from Levi, and in the promissory note wrote that he is extending the lien to: "the property that I will acquire in the future." He then purchased a field and sold it to Yehudah for 150 zuz. Yehudah made an investment and caused its value to increase, and ultimately it was worth 300 zuz. Shimon and Levi expropriate the principal and divide it equally. Thus, each receives 75 zuz.
The three - Shimon, Levi and Yehudah - then divide the 150 zuz of the field's increase in value according to the principles that we explained. Thus, Shimon expropriates the complete payment of the maneh owed him from this field. Levi expropriates 137 1/2, and Yehudah receives 62 1/2 from the field's increase in value. They should divide the increase in value in this manner. These principles apply even if there are 100 creditors.
אבַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ הַלּוֹקֵחַ בֵּין שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה בֵּין שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים מֵאֲלֵיהֶן. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם שָׁבְחוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן טוֹרֵף כָּל הַשֶּׁבַח וְאִם הִשְׁבִּיחוּ מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה גּוֹבֶה חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח. כֵּיצַד. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ חוֹב עַל שִׁמְעוֹן מָאתַיִם וּמָכַר שִׁמְעוֹן לְלֵוִי שָׂדֶה בְּמָנֶה וְהוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ לֵוִי הוֹצָאוֹת וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה מָאתַיִם. כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא רְאוּבֵן לִטְרֹף מִלֵּוִי טוֹרֵף מִמֶּנָּה בְּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁל חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח. וְאִם הִשְׁבִּיחָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּקְרָה בְּדָמִים אוֹ עָלוּ בָּהּ אִילָנוֹת גּוֹבֶה אֶת כֻּלָּהּ. הוֹרוּ חֲכָמִים גְּדוֹלִים וְאָמְרוּ לֹא יְהֵא הַלּוֹקֵחַ רַע כֹּחוֹ מֵהַיּוֹרֵד לִשְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת שֶׁשָּׁמִין לוֹ וְיָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה לְפִיכָךְ אִם הִשְׁבִּיחַ מֵאָה וְהוֹצִיא חֲמִשִּׁים נוֹטֵל כָּל הַהוֹצָאָה וַחֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח הַיָּתֵר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה וְהַחֲצִי עִם הַקֶּרֶן טוֹרֵף בַּעַל חוֹב [וּדְבָרִים שֶׁל טַעַם הֵם וְכָךְ רָאוּי לָדוּן] וְחוֹזֵר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְגוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן מִנִּכְסֵי שִׁמְעוֹן אַף מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁמָּכַר אוֹ נָתַן מֵאַחַר זְמַן שֶׁמָּכַר בּוֹ לְלֵוִי. אֲבָל הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁטָּרַף מִמֶּנּוּ בַּעַל חוֹב בֵּין בְּחֶצְיוֹ בֵּין בְּכֻלּוֹ אֵין לֵוִי גּוֹבֵהוּ אֶלָּא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁתַּקָּנַת עוֹלָם הִיא שֶׁלֹּא יִגְבֶּה הַשֶּׁבַח וְלֹא הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל הַגַּזְלָן וְלֹא מְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה. וּמִקֻּלֵּי כְּתֻבָּה שֶׁלֹּא תִּטְרֹף אִשָּׁה מִן הַשֶּׁבַח כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וְלָמָּה יִטְרֹף בַּעַל חוֹב חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח בִּלְבַד הַבָּאָה מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה עַצְמָהּ לְפִי שֶׁהַשֶּׁבַח בָּא לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מֵרְאוּבֵן וּלְאַחַר שֶׁמָּכַר לְלֵוִי וְנִמְצָא רְאוּבֵן וְלֵוִי כִּשְׁנֵי בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְהַשֶּׁבַח בַּנְּכָסִים שֶׁבָּאוּ לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁהֵן חוֹלְקִין כְּאֶחָד כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ רְאוּבֵן שֶׁלָּוָה מִשִּׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה וְכָתַב לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת וְחָזַר וְלָוָה מִלֵּוִי מָאתַיִם וְכָתַב לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת וְקָנָה אַחַר כָּךְ שָׂדֶה וּמְכָרָהּ לִיהוּדָה בְּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ יְהוּדָה בְּהוֹצָאָתוֹ וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת טוֹרֵף שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי הַקֶּרֶן וְחוֹלְקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה וְנִמְצָא בְּיַד זֶה חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים וּבְיַד זֶה חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים. וְחוֹזְרִין שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי וִיהוּדָה שְׁלָשְׁתָּן וְחוֹלְקִין מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁל שֶׁבַח עַל הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ. נִמְצָא שִׁמְעוֹן טוֹרֵף מָנֶה שֶׁלּוֹ מִשָּׂדֶה זוֹ וְלֵוִי טוֹרֵף מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁבְעָה וּמֶחֱצָה וִיהוּדָה נוֹטֵל מִן הַשֶּׁבַח שְׁנַיִם וְשִׁשִּׁים וּמֶחֱצָה. וְכָזֶה הֵן חוֹלְקִין אֲפִלּוּ הֵן מֵאָה:
All of the produce that the purchaser consumed, however, is not expropriated from him. The produce that is attached to the land, by contrast, including even the produce that no longer needs the nurture of the land - e.g., grapes that are ready to be harvested - may be expropriated by a creditor in the same way as he expropriates the property's increase in value.
בכָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל הַלּוֹקֵחַ אֵינָן נִטְרָפִין מִמֶּנּוּ. אֲבָל הַפֵּרוֹת הַמְחֻבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לַקַּרְקַע כַּעֲנָבִים שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְהִבָּצֵר הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מֵהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁגּוֹבֶה מִן הַשֶּׁבַח:
When the recipient of a present invests in it and causes its value to increase, the creditor may not expropriate any of its increase in value. Instead, we evaluate its worth at the time the present was given and allow him to expropriate that amount. If, however, it increases in value as a matter of course, the creditor may expropriate the entire field. If the person giving the present accepts responsibility for it, the creditor may expropriate the increase in value from this field just as he would if it were in the possession of a purchaser.
Why is a creditor given the right to expropriate half of a property's increase in value from a purchaser, but not from a person who receives a present? Because the seller of the property wrote to the purchaser in the deed of sale: "I am obligated to you for the principal, the labor you invest in it, and the increase in value that you will bring to it. I take responsibility for everything." The purchaser accepted this stipulation. For the purchaser took possession of the field on the condition that if the increase in the value of the field was expropriated from him, he would seek recompense from the seller. Even if this stipulation was not written in the deed of sale, it is a matter of public knowledge that this is the law governing the seller's responsibility to the purchaser. With regard to a present, by contrast, this stipulation does not apply. Hence, a creditor may not expropriate any increase in value that the recipient of a present brought about through investment.
גמַתָּנָה שֶׁשָּׁבְחָה מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִשִּׁבְחָהּ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא רוֹאִין כַּמָּה הָיְתָה שָׁוָה בִּשְׁעַת מַתָּנָה וְגוֹבֶה. וְאִם שָׁבְחָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת כֻּלָּהּ. וְאִם קִבֵּל הַנּוֹתֵן אַחֲרָיוּת הַמַּתָּנָה הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנָּה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁגּוֹבִין מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. וְלָמָּה יִטְרֹף בַּעַל חוֹב חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח מִן הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְלֹא יִטְרֹף מִמְּקַבֵּל מַתָּנָה כְּלוּם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר כּוֹתֵב לַלּוֹקֵחַ בִּשְׁטַר מְכִירָה שֶׁאֲנִי מְחֻיָּב לְךָ בַּקֶּרֶן וּבֵעָמָל שֶׁתַּעֲמל וּבַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁתַּשְׁבִּיחַ וְעָלַי אַחֲרָיוּת הַכּל וְרָצָה הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְקִבֵּל דָּבָר זֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ יָרַד עַל תְּנַאי זֶה שֶׁאִם יִלָּקַח מִמֶּנּוּ הַשֶּׁבַח יַחְזֹר עַל הַמּוֹכֵר. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא כָּתַב כְּבָר נוֹדַע שֶׁזֶּה דִּין הַמּוֹכֵר עִם הַלּוֹקֵחַ. אֲבָל הַמַּתָּנָה שֶׁאֵין שָׁם תְּנַאי זֶה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִשֶּׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ בְּהוֹצָאָתוֹ כְּלוּם:
Similarly, if orphans who inherit an estate increase its value, a creditor of their father may not expropriate any of its increase in value. If, however, the property increases in value as a matter of course, he may expropriate the entire increase.
דוְכֵן יְתוֹמִים שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ הַנְּכָסִים אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִן הַשֶּׁבַח כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אִם שָׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים מֵאֲלֵיהֶן גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח כֻּלּוֹ:
The following laws apply when a creditor expropriates property for a debt owed him from a purchaser from the principal and half of the increase in the property's value. We then consider what remains of the landed property. If the land that remains would be of value to the purchaser - e.g., in a field, an area where nine kabbin of grain could be sown, in a garden, an area where half a kab of vegetables could be sown - the creditor and the purchaser should become partners with regard to the land. If the property is not large enough to be divided in a manner that the smaller portion of sufficient size would be referred to as a field or as a garden, the creditor should reimburse the purchaser financially for the increase in the value of the field, as is due him.
הבַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁטָּרַף בְּחוֹבוֹ מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לוֹ מִן הַקֶּרֶן וַחֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח רוֹאִין הַנִּשְׁאָר מִן הַקַּרְקַע אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ תְּעָלָה לַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר לוֹ בַּשָּׂדֶה בַּיִת תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין וּבַגִּנָּה בַּיִת חֲצִי קַב יִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בָּהּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְאִם לֹא נִשְׁאַר לוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁאִלּוּ יְחַלֵּק יִהְיֶה שֵׁם כֻּלּוֹ עָלָיו נוֹתֵן לוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב אֶת דָּמָיו:
The following rules apply when a field was designated as an ipotiki. The creditor may expropriate the entire field. We consider the half of the field's increase in value which must be repaid to the purchaser. If half of the increase in value exceeds the purchaser's investment, he should collect the amount he invested from the creditor. He is given only this amount, because the creditor can tell him: "It is my field that increased in value." He should collect the remainder of the money due him from the field's increase in value from the seller.
If half of the field's increase in value is less than the purchaser's investment, the purchaser should be reimbursed by the person who expropriated the field for only half of the field's increase in value. He then collects from the seller the other half of the field's increase in value.
והָיְתָה הַשָּׂדֶה אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי בַּעַל חוֹב נוֹטֵל אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְרוֹאִין חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח הַנִּשְׁאָר לַלּוֹקֵחַ אִם הָיָה חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח יֶתֶר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה נוֹטֵל הַהוֹצָאָה מִבַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב שָׂדִי הוּא שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָה וְהַנִּשְׁאָר לוֹ מִן הַשֶּׁבַח נוֹטֵל מִן הַמּוֹכֵר וְאִם הָיָה חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח פָּחוֹת מִן הַהוֹצָאָה אֵין לוֹ מִן הַטּוֹרֵף אֶלָּא דְּמֵי חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח וְחוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מִן הַמּוֹכֵר חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁנִּטְרַף בִּלְבַד:
When a creditor comes to expropriate property from heirs, and the heirs claim: "We caused the value of the property to increase," but the creditor claims: "Perhaps it was your father who caused the property to increase in value," the burden of proof is on the heirs.
If the heirs bring proof that they increased the value of the property, we evaluate the increase and their expenses. They receive the lesser of the two, and they are given this amount in money.
When does the above apply? When the field was designated an ipotiki. If, however, it was not designated an ipotiki, if the heirs desire, they have the right to pay the creditor the debt he is owed and absolve his claim. Or if they desire, they may take a share of the land that is equivalent to the value of the increase they brought to the value of the property.
זבַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁבָּא לִטְרֹף מִן הַיְתוֹמִין. יְתוֹמִים אוֹמְרִים אָנוּ הִשְׁבַּחְנוּ וּבַעַל חוֹב אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא אֲבִיכֶם הִשְׁבִּיחַ. עַל הַיְתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. הֵבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵם הִשְׁבִּיחוּ שָׁמִין לָהֶן אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח וְאֶת הַהוֹצָאָה וְנוֹטְלִין הַפָּחוּת שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶן וּמַעֲלֶה אוֹתָן בְּדָמִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה שָׂדֶה זוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עָשָׂהוּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי אִם רָצוּ הַיְתוֹמִין לְסַלֵּק בַּעַל חוֹב בְּדָמִים מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ וְאִם רָצוּ נוֹטְלִין מִן הַקַּרְקַע שִׁעוּר שֶׁבַח שֶׁלָּהֶן:
Quiz Yourself on Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 19
Quiz Yourself on Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 20
Quiz Yourself on Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 21
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.